Is there a way out?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Is there a way out?

Post by gheinz »

Much of what I want to write here I have already written in "Is our reality just a construction?https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... hp?t=17999. I would like to put it up for discussion again because I think it is particularly important, because I think I can get to the point better now, because I think I can discuss and argue better. But the beginning is already new:

Everyone has experienced it once. One has already been listening to a speaker for a while who has so far delivered his presentation evenly, almost monotonously. Suddenly he stops, hesitates and starts repeating something that has already been said. The listeners suddenly wake up and follow what is being said with increased vigilance. What did that happen? - The answer is very easy to find: the speaker is obviously dissatisfied with what has already been said and believes he can formulate it better a second time. This can be justified by the fact that he believes that he has not formulated it in a way that is sufficiently understandable or that he has not formulated it precisely.

As a listener, you usually have no problem with an incident like this, you usually think that something like this can happen to anyone, that it can even happen to a practiced speaker. If you talk about it afterwards, you can say, for example, that the speaker stuttered at a certain point. In certain cases one could assume that the reason for this was that the speaker had not thought through the relevant facts sufficiently. In any case, that would not be reason for assuming that there was a pervasive disorder in the speaker.

However, what is referred to here as stuttering, there is a second form in which the speaker repeats himself. In contrast to the previous way of stuttering, here it is repeated uniformly; the same syllable is repeated several times. This type of stuttering is evaluated very differently. It is usually viewed as a more profound personality disorder or as an illness.

You may not know for sure, but you could surmise that this disorder has been around for as long as there have been people who can speak. A famous example from ancient times is the Greek orator Demosthenes, who is said to have tried to get rid of the disorder by practicing speaking with pebbles in his mouth. Therapists who specialize in this disorder are called speech therapists. Numerous clubs and organizations in all countries of the world deal with this disorder. Of course, science has dealt with this in detail in the past and in the present and has thought about its causes. Both somatogenic and psychogenic causes are suspected.

If one considers that the same word is used for both forms of disturbed speech, namely stuttering, one would have to assume that the second type of stuttering is also caused by dissatisfaction with what has already been said and the belief that one could speak it better on a second or even a third attempt. The main difference would be that in one case the check takes place as what has already been spoken arrives at the recipient; in the other case, it would be a test in relation to ones own quality standards. In the second case, it is a test that takes place in a self-referential way. No reference is made to the listener, on the contrary, it is not taken into account that the listeners might feel disturbed by this type of test.

Although such an explanation (in retrospect) must be considered obvious, in fact it never seems to have been put up for discussion.

The author went to the trouble of asking an expert, a research associate at a university, whether such an explanation had already been discussed in specialist circles. He might have expected that the name of an author would be given and an indication of where he had made a statement to that effect. After he has not received such an answer, he must assume precisely that such a discussion for such an explanation has never taken place in professional circles.

There seems to have been a thought inhibition here, a taboo that has now been broken. I will discuss this in more detail.

Irrespective of whether such a speculation is correct or not, one can assume that a person affected would experience it as a strong incentive to preferably pay attention to how what is said is received by the listener when speaking. The confrontation with such a possible explanation should have a significant healing effect.

One can also extend this speculation to the extent that one assumes that it can also be the cause of other disorders and diseases. Excessive or inappropriate selfishness could be the cause of disorders and diseases. This is to be discussed later.
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Is there a way out?

Post by Thomyum2 »

This is an interesting question, though I'm not quite sure I completely follow you here and I also don't quite understand how this connects to your question in the other thread about reality being our construction (which is also a topic of interest to me, although I'll need to go back and review that thread to refresh my memory).

But that aside, your post caught my attention because it reminded me of an excellent video article that I saw in the New York Times several months ago which really struck me, so I thought I'd start out by offering that here for your consideration. It seems to me that perhaps you're saying basically the same thing that this writer is saying but taking a little bit of a different angle?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/opin ... ening.html
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is there a way out?

Post by gheinz »

gheinz wrote: May 19th, 2022, 3:14 am I previously wrote an abridged version in the thread Re: Can't we ever see the real world? and reported on it in an abbreviated form in https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... hp?t=15839. I would like to discuss this topic in more detail here. The following considerations are based on just 2 findings/observations:

1. The starting point is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. Fortunately, while it is not possible to go directly into the state of selflessness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), there is an easy way - through a simple logical deduction - to find out what reality would be like in that state.

2. Here the starting point is the recognition that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Now, using a simple inversion, we can state that in the state of SELFLESSNESS (where by definition there is no egoism) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries; i.e. that this state can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity and, moreover, as a state of freedom. Because in the state of unselfishness we would see things as they actually are, it follows that there really are no meaningful boundaries. Our egoism makes us believe that there are limits and it is also the one that constructs our reality, ie. it pretends it to us.

You can judge how far I have succeeded in this derivation and I would be happy to read about it in the comments. I will continue these thoughts afterwards.
gheinz wrote: January 8th, 2023, 7:17 am
Angelo Cannata wrote: May 19th, 2022, 5:16 am You don't need egoism to be prevented from any contact with reality. You just can't, because selflessness is impossible: it is impossible simply because it is impossible to think without using our brain. As a consequence, whatever we think is unreliable, because we don't have any way to get control of our brain without using it again to do the control.
What I have said is a direct consequence of assuming that there is some reality out there: if it exists, we cannot ignore the reality of our being inescapably imprisoned into our brain, so that the very ideas of "reality", "being", "out there" turn out to be creations of our brain: we must admit that we have no idea of what they mean.
This is the paradox: if we assume that reality exists, this very assumption forces us automatically to admit that we don't know what we are talking about.
The key to understanding is probably: The state of unselfishness is a state of desirelessness. This means that one is self-sufficient, that everything but oneself is meaningless. Everything means: space, time, especially matter are meaningless, yes, they no longer exist. It also means that one's own body has become meaningless, it no longer exists. This in turn means that the brain no longer exists either. You are right, thinking is no longer possible. However: If nothing exists anymore I don't have to worry anymore; It doesn't mean anything to me that I can't think anymore.

But it remains that I can observe. What I can observe in myself: There are no limits for me. My ability to achieve is unlimited. But if I have unlimited ability, what else should I wish for? - I will not make use of my (unlimited) ability. What remains: The good feeling of being infinitely powerful.

That’s all I want to say. However I believe it is necessary to anticipate a possible objection: I suspect that the objection may come that one cannot get rid of one's body because it could manifest itself through pain. However, it seems to me that there is no fixed connection between the body and consciousness. I think I read that someone who had been through a horrible accident felt no pain, at least for a very short time, even though he had lost a significant part of his body because the shock of what he had experienced overwhelmed the pain.

Here one can refute the objection on the grounds that experiencing unlimited power results in the inability to perceive bodily sensations.
I will continue soon!
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is there a way out?

Post by gheinz »

Thomyum2 wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:23 pm This is an interesting question, though I'm not quite sure I completely follow you here and I also don't quite understand how this connects to your question in the other thread about reality being our construction (which is also a topic of interest to me, although I'll need to go back and review that thread to refresh my memory).

But that aside, your post caught my attention because it reminded me of an excellent video article that I saw in the New York Times several months ago which really struck me, so I thought I'd start out by offering that here for your consideration. It seems to me that perhaps you're saying basically the same thing that this writer is saying but taking a little bit of a different angle?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/23/opin ... ening.html
I couldn't read this article because it requires a subscription. What is particularly important for me is to show in the post that there is an inhibition, a taboo. To add to that, the taboo refers to the pair of terms selfishness (self-centeredness) vs selflessness, namely its epistemic aspect. So far, this pair of terms has only been used in an ethical/moral context. I hope you will continue to follow my current thread.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is there a way out?

Post by gheinz »

gheinz wrote: May 19th, 2022, 3:14 am The following considerations are based on just 2 findings/observations:

1. The starting point is the realization that we are not objective observers of reality because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Rather, we are partisan, biased observers. There is therefore a possibility that we do not see reality as it actually is. Fortunately, while it is not possible to go directly into the state of selflessness (in which we would be objective, impartial observers), there is an easy way - through a simple logical deduction - to find out what reality would be like in that state.

2. Here the starting point is the recognition that there are subjectively significant limits as a result of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, self-centeredness). Now, using a simple inversion, we can state that in the state of SELFLESSNESS (where by definition there is no egoism) there are no subjectively meaningful boundaries; i.e. that this state can be seen as a state of limitlessness and infinity and, moreover, as a state of freedom. Because in the state of unselfishness we would see things as they actually are, it follows that there really are no meaningful boundaries. Our egoism makes us believe that there are limits and it is also the one that constructs our reality, ie. it pretends it to us.
Even before you think about whether valid knowledge was gained here, you have to ask yourself why these thoughts were not thought of much earlier. For example, in his allegory of the cave, Plato may have associated the underground prison with the state of selfishness, and may have an association with the state of freedom that a prisoner in the parable attains after being brought out of the cave to the surface with the state of selflessness.

The Advaita Vedanta philosophy arose in India much earlier than the allegory of the cave was conceived. Its soteriological aim is to experience the unity between the Atman, the core of the individual personality, the individual self and Brahman (the cosmic self, the cause of EVERYTHING). In this philosophy, however, this unity is always accepted as given, but cannot be experienced in everyday consciousness. As already described here, in the state of selflessness there are no limits and there is only oneness. Thus, in this state, the soteriological goal of this philosophy is reached. Here, too, one has to ask oneself why this knowledge has only now become possible. The answer can only be that a taboo, a thought inhibition, has so far prevented a comprehensive reflection on selflessness. In Hindu philosophy there is the term Maya. Maya means illusion and magic. It is an integral part of Advaita-Vedanta. Thus Advaita-Vedanta teaches that our world is an illusion and explains mental inhibition with magic.

Now let's take a closer look at the state of selflessness. The only thing that counts here is the self, the Atman in Indian philosophy, the unrestricted core of the personality, the observer. Everything else, the koshas in Indian philosophy, the sheaths have become meaningless, no longer exist because they have limitations. But this also applies to much more: space, time, causality, conceptual thinking, material objects are no longer available.

There is no boundary between the subjective and the objective realm. That means: everything that exists is my thoughts, everything that exists is created by my thoughts. For the loss of all this, however, one is compensated in an excellent way. There is no limit to my personal power. What hurts us most in ordinary life, in the state of selfishness, is that we constantly experience limitations in our personal power. That pain is no longer there, instead there is infinite well-being.

One could explain this unlimited power by the unity of the personal SELF, Atman, with the cosmic Self, Brahman (endowed with omnipotence). But since, as mentioned, there is no conceptual thinking in the state of unselfishness, one must also regard Brahman as a construct given only in the state of selfishness and not as actually existing independently of itself.

* * *

How can we attain the state of unselfishness, that desirable state; how should the path to this goal look like?

1. Since the goal is the state of selflessness, the path must be free from egocentric elements.

2. Since the goal is a state of complete freedom, there must be no restrictions on this path. This means that anyone who walks this path can keep the same thoughts and opinions, they can act exactly as before, regardless of how those actions are judged by the public.

3. This argument is a bit more complicated: you have to look at what was said before. All of these thoughts were fairly simple and easy to understand. The question is, why wasn't it thought of much earlier, why were there people who didn't think of it a few thousand years ago? - The intellectual capacity of early humans was probably not the limiter. The reason for this restriction must have been that there was a taboo, an inhibition that allowed the terms egoism/egocentrism and selflessness to be used only insufficiently in the epistemological sense. The use of these terms was previously only possible in an ethical-moral context. One bypassed the forbidden areas without realizing it; one did not notice that a taboo existed. However, this taboo was already broken at the beginning of the chain of arguments by stating that "... the starting point is the realization that because of our egoism (selfishness, self-care, egocentricity) we are not objective observers of reality." Why is it after breaking this Taboos still not possible to experience the freedom of the state of selflessness, why can't this knowledge be assimilated? - The answer to this can only be: We humans are all connected because there are no limits in the state of selflessness and it is therefore difficult for the individual to break away from the general consensus. The goal will be achieved to the extent that many people have broken the taboo and recognized the knowledge hidden behind it.

All three criteria taken together mean that everyone who walks this path does so by acknowledging the knowledge imparted and by inviting others to walk this path as well. Everyone issues invitations, which the invitee can also invite in the same way. Nothing more is required.

Anyone who participates in the dissemination of knowledge trains their mind so that it works optimally, i.e. unselfishly. I will explain this in more detail and make a suggestion on how to conveniently implement this.

There is a second train of thought that leads to the same result:

The starting point is the question of what is the cause of all of humanity's problems. Human EGOISM is assumed to be the cause here. This is not about moral judgments. It doesn't matter whether someone in need consumes environmental resources to survive, for example by clearing a piece of rainforest, or someone who lives in luxury does so in order to enjoy even more luxury. In both cases, environmental resources are used to the same extent. It is also irrelevant for the outcome of a war whether one is an attacker or a defender; in both cases there is killing, injuring and destroying. Instead of egoism, one could also say that self-care or simply egocentricity is the cause of all problems.

It is clear that it is not possible to bring about behavioral change directly; There are power structures against which nothing can be done. However, it is possible to influence INDIRECTLY by countering selfish action with SELFLESS ACTION.

A second aspect in this context is that there is not much you can do as an individual. Taken together, they result in a very special kind of selfless action that takes effect without using any resources of your own or making any personal sacrifices: you invite others to join the program.

In order to achieve exponential growth in this way, all participants should gain at least 2 direct successors. Assuming it takes an average of 1 week to achieve this, it takes 30 weeks to reach 2^30, i.e. 1.09 billion participants. One can assume that profound positive changes are already taking place here. However, the time of 30 weeks seems too short to me. I believe that the assumption of 1 week for recruiting 2 successors is therefore not sufficient. You should try anyway.

In the meantime, a third line of thought has occurred to me, which leads to the same practical action as the line of thought mentioned above.

This is about democracy, the form of organization with the largest possible freedom for the individual. Democracies are threatened from without by their enemies and from within by decay and erosion. It must be maintained through activity. This activity cannot be a measure ordered from above by the representatives of this form of democracy. Democracy can only be enlivened from below, through community-building action by the citizens. These are all forms of the exercise of direct democracy, such as citizens' assemblies for the joint formation of convictions and interests, the exercise of institutional referendums as well as demonstrations and rallies to publicize the interests and wishes of parts of the population.

Through the path described above, direct democracy receives strong impulses and can therefore significantly promote free forms of community.

Practical implementation is offered for all three trains of thought: https://manifestup.com/a?InviterID=324-1836311541.
gheinz
Posts: 33
Joined: August 16th, 2018, 4:35 am

Re: Is there a way out?

Post by gheinz »

Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021